BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

How should we select moderators?

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Bed Head
09:02 / 10.08.05
Some quotes to start:

Sylph, here: Although I think the "Which is okay because of distributed moderation" is actually a bit inaccurate at the moment, given how far we've strayed from actually getting new mods on board. Moderation is in the hands of the few, which is why the many expect that moderators should actually behave differently. After all, if they're not, shouldn't we simply have more mods?

Smoothly, here: I’m not denying that some peoples’ opinions tend to carry more weight than others’, but it seems to me that this has more to do with their reputation, contribution and an authority derived naturally from a positive and long-standing involvement with the community. Of course there’s some cross-over here, but I think it’s their qualities as *posters* that confers them ‘weight’, rather than mod status. I don’t think I need to name names to point out that there are lots of posters whose opinions are widely respected but who are not moderators...... I think mods should (and largely do) become moderators *because* they have demonstrated a level of respect in the community; they don't become mods and therefore respected. If that makes sense.


Tom, here: We should be thinking about a more democratic process in the longer term - and you're quite right that maybe we don't need more software to get that in place. Can I propose that people work together to propose non-technology based structures for checking that people are comfortable with the existing moderators and finding structures for proposing new ones. I'd be quite happy setting an arbitrary date (say November 1st) for us to do another revision to the moderators based on whatever process you guys come up with


So, what do we need to consider when checking that people are comfortable with existing mods and then coming up with a structure for proposing new ones? Smoothly talks about people becoming mods because they have 'demonstrated a level of respect within the community', but does it really work like that? Do we need/can we have a way of checking that?

Also, I think it was Sally D who talked about properly distributing the jobs across timezones, in order that requests and problems can be attended to quickly. Is that a requirement we're addressing sufficiently? For example, considering the amount of trolls the forum attracts, it seems crazy to me that the Temple only has the *one* active mod from the across the Atlantic. Books, G&G, Head Shop, Policy, also only have the one American. The Creation, Music have two. And it’s often the same names - surely the jobs should be more spread out, if only because if grant, Gridley or Sally D go offline for a few days, we’ll be left dead short all over. But other people might have more pressing concerns.

So, what would we want a new process/structure to achieve, and how might we do it with the existing technology?

To get the ball rolling, this is a process for selecting new mods that I suggested in the Results of the Moderation cleaning thread, here:

"I’m suggesting that, when moderator lists need refreshing and re-jigging, there’s a time-scale: a week, a fortnight, a month, and a fairly organised set of stages. The way I’d have it is with the mechanics of the process being transparent, but keeping the votes and the personal issues confidential. Like this:

* Art_Garfunkle666 puts himself forward to be a mod in The Temple.

* His name is duly added to the list of all prospective Temple mods on the page in the wiki (eg LINK - because the wiki can be so damn helpful if we *want* to use it)

* I am a User Of Barbelith and regular poster in the Temple. I see that list, and I am concerned about the prospect of Art_Garfunkle666 modding the Temple based what happened in [such-and-such a thread] some time, and how they dealt with [this] incident. I write it all down in a pm, with links and everything. It’s a Policy issue about suitability for a particular job, not just having a bitch about personalities, or an opportunity to pursue vendettas against your arch-enemy. If mods commanding the respect of the forum is important, then so is this bit.

* That pm is cc’d to every current Temple mod and to Art_Garfunkle666, so he’s aware of and involved in the process. Even if he *does* become a Temple mod, he’s aware of the issues that were raised leading up to that appointment. I'm not interested in a system which encourages sneaking atound behind anyone's back.

* Temple mods may know what I’m going on about, may already have their own views one way or another, may not have a clue and want to know more. They may know me to be a loon or a stalker or a Vengeful Little Shit, and treat my opinions accordingly. Any or all of them can pm to ask questions of me and/or Art_Garfunkle666, until they’ve got it straight in their head, enough to form a view.

* At the end of this ‘consultation’ period, all questions have been put, all enquiries answered, the vote occurs: Each current Temple mod looks at the list on the wiki, and arranges the names in the order they’d like people to be considered. Any views from forum members are kept in mind, but mods aren't obliged to vote according to any concerns they’ve received. They're just being made aware of any relevant feelings that anybody has. A poster saying they’re not happy isn’t in itself enough to torpedo someone’s chances, likewise any expressions of support are relevant, but not decisive or anything. It’s like MPs, who aren’t obliged to vote according to the wishes of their constituents - they’re just aware of the views in their postbag and then apply their own judgement. However, ultimately *this* vote is private, and isn’t any more up for public scrutiny than any other moderation vote on barbelith.

* PM this to a nominated person for each forum, who collate these votes and comes up with a definitive, confidential final list for each forum.

* Nominated person for each forum/whoever changes that into the user number/forum number format, sends it to Tom. Tom retains the right to tinker/skip/promote names on the list as he sees fit, without review. If he has feelings of his own about the names on the list, what he thinks overrides everything without question.

* As many new mods as necessary are then drawn from the top of that list.


That’s the way I’d suggest we could structure consultation without too much trouble. Not a pristine plan that I’m massively invested in, just the start of an idea, and posted in the desperate home it might be subjected to some kind of Policy kick-around. C’monnnnnn kids.


...Aaaannd just to say, reading back, I realise that a lot of that post was phrased in a certain way because I *was* concerned about specific mod appointments that had just taken place. But, its not just that, and I still think ‘suitability’ could be a pretty important consideration when building/expanding moderation structures on barbelith in ways that everyone can be happy with. I’m interested to hear other opinions on this. So, in tandem with this thread about how we expect moderators to behave, can we explore how we might want to evaluate/select/organise our moderators, and find ways to make any such reorganisation a groovy, involving process that leaves posters happy, and fora efficient and harmonious?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:42 / 10.08.05
A couple of board iterations ago access to the Supermoderators forum was opened to anyone that had posted a certain amount of time. I'd quite like moderation to work along those sorts of lines, but that anyone who isn't a moderator doesn't actually get a vote. So if you were a board member who has been on Barbelith for, say a year, AND has posted, say one hundred, posts, then you can do all the things a forum moderator can do, but only moderators can see what you've suggested and only they can add their votes to agree or disagree with what you've suggested.

If a moderator in a forum sees a number of stupid/weird requests from a particular poster then they can either PM that poster and find out what's going on, and/or PM Tom. If someone is dicking around then Tom can actually pull the plug and they either loose their ability to suggest moderation actions until they've been on Barbelith for another amount of time and posts, or they just get blocked from doing that for a set period of time, then allowed to try again.

It also has the advantage that if moderators see an error in a forum they don't moderate they would be able to flag it to the attention of a moderator without using the 'moderator requests' thread.

However, looking back over what I've written, I'm not sure if this would all be possible without Tom either having to do a lot of manual work and/or board reprogramming. Oh well...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:38 / 10.08.05
I'm sorry but I kind of like the way it works at the moment, with people saying they want to moderate and then becoming a moderator unless someone says no for a specific reason. I like it because it's off the person's own back to say they want to moderate, it's quite a haphazard process but it's a kind process and it means that in all likelihood that person is reading more than one forum, which all barbelith moderators should do.

Primarily though I admit I have a dislike of selection processes.
 
 
Bed Head
14:32 / 10.08.05
I'm sorry but I kind of like the way it works at the moment, with people saying they want to moderate and then becoming a moderator unless someone says no for a specific reason. I like it because it's off the person's own back to say they want to moderate, it's quite a haphazard process but it's a kind process and it means that in all likelihood that person is reading more than one forum, which all barbelith moderators should do.

Primarily though I admit I have a dislike of selection processes.

Well. Would you acknowledge that there are any problems with way we just did things? With the ‘Results of moderator cleaning’ thread having determined that we have fewer active moderators around here than we used to, the response to that was for the fewer remaining moderators to expand their responsibilities. I think that's a pretty limited way of addressing the practical needs of a distributed moderation system, and what about how it looks to the rest of the site? Radiator’s latest anti-moderator/anti-haus rant might in itself be baseless, but I’m more worried that he might have latched onto some kind of vibe. The ‘them and us’ thing that sylph mentions. Tom says it's 'the intention' to get lots of new mods, but it's not really happening, is it?

Aaaaages back, I asked here if ‘any Policy mod’ would like to start a thread in Convo asking for new moderators. Now, I know that I could start such a thread, but a) I don’t really think it’s my job, and b) I’m not even too sure that’s what anyone else wants. Apart from Tom, no-one’s really responded to that question, not any Policy mod.

And you talk about ‘unless someone says no for a specific reason’ - so, what’s wrong with having a process to raise specific objections that don’t involve having to either slip a sneaky pm to Tom, or else having to publically examine the wisdom of such-and-such being a moderator, like this? Because moderator jobs aren’t up for open, public vote now, and I’m not really suggesting that they should be. But I do think sampling opinion could be important in what are, effectively, public appointments. You say it’s a haphazard process, nina, but it’s not apparently haphazard enough for Toksik to mod Switchboard, or sylph to mod G&G, or boboss to mod F,TV&T. Would it really be so inappropiate to ask the posters in those forums how they'd feel?

Also, practical considerations. Timezones. Important, or not? Because *if* it’s important, then atm we’re just leaving it for Tom to worry about. I think we could take on a little more of that ourselves.
 
 
rising and revolving
16:11 / 10.08.05
I'm sorry but I kind of like the way it works at the moment, with people saying they want to moderate and then becoming a moderator unless someone says no for a specific reason.

But that's definately *not* the way it works at the moment. Check this thread and the results in the G&G forum to see the actual way it currently works, which is mysterious hidden fiat.

I'm honestly not just being grumpy because I wasn't made a mod - really.

On the other hand, there's a substantial gap between the way the 'lith is intended to work (based on the Wiki) the way people seem to think it works and the actual way it does work.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:22 / 10.08.05
That's fair. I mean, I think there are probably good reasons why you weren't made a moderator, but you should probably have access to those reasons... at least at the level of being able to PM somebody and say "Why was I not selected as a moderator?" An "audition" or "pre-modding" period where objections can be raised might not be a bad idea either...
 
 
rising and revolving
16:45 / 10.08.05
Absolutely. I'm really not at all concerned about the decision made - there were after all only 10 slots avaliable, just for starters. It's the process that I feel doesn't meet the aspirations of the board, nor the beliefs people hold as to how things work here.

I don't even object to the fact that almost every non-janitorial decision pretty much gets made or not depending on how Tom feels. I do think, though, that it flies somewhat in the face of the intent of Barbelith (as stated on the Wiki and elsewhere) - which is to distribute the powers that on most other boards would be held by a select few.

Most of those powers still reside in Tom's hands and the minor ones that don't are in the hands of a relatively small group of mods[1]

I do think it's a big question to be answered - is the distributed moderation experiment working, and worth continuing? What does it add to the 'lith that wouldn't otherwise exist? Ultimately, is the aim to preserve the current form or to continue mutating (very difficult with Tom not avaliable nor willing to delegate, but not impossible) - a lot of the back and forth in Policy feels to me as if it's ultimately wrestling with just that question.

[1] Compared to other boards with similar numbers of active users, Barbelith doesn't have many more mods - it has slightly above average, as near as I can tell, but not enough to make a real difference.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:49 / 10.08.05
You have to accept that Tom's going to want to put people he knows well into a new forum.

Do you really want the type of transparency you're suggesting around moderation? I want you all to really, really think about this because there will be criticisms thrown around about people and they'll be serious- some of them will be about your use of words and grammar, the content of your posts and the detail they include or exclude, your initial interaction with the board. These are things that moderators think about now and people need to consider whether they've been quietly actively rejected or not and whether they want a real insight into that rejection and how they will start to interact here in the face of that.

The ‘them and us’ thing that sylph mentions.

Has been going on for 10 years on every bulletin board and chatroom that I've ever contributed to or moderated. You can't rid people of their paranoia. The 'them and us' is something people construct because they're scared that people don't like *them*.

Tom says it's 'the intention' to get lots of new mods, but it's not really happening, is it?

Start a thread, ask Tom when he has time to do it. He's the only person who can install new moderators, he's the only person with any power over the moderation system here.

a) I don’t really think it’s my job, and b) I’m not even too sure that’s what anyone else wants.

If you think we need new moderators then it is your job, if no one else wants it but you think there are potential moderators on the board then get on with it.

With the ‘Results of moderator cleaning’ thread having determined that we have fewer active moderators around here than we used to, the response to that was for the fewer remaining moderators to expand their responsibilities

We have 47 moderators right now. I moderate 4 fora and I usually only have between 4 and 8 requests a day, I check barbelith consistently between midday-ish to 3am-ish BST. It's a matter of identifying fora that need new moderators... only Tom has access to the solid statistics that can confirm slow turnover. If this is about practicality I suggest you start with those stats before you institute this system.

Personally you haven't addressed the selection issue. I would not be happy with selecting moderators, I have never rejected anyone as a potential moderator for a forum that I work within that capacity for. I can think of a person that I think might be a good AFD moderator but I wouldn't put their name forward before they approached the issue on their own. I would never submit someone's name unless it was their idea and I'm not happy with the idea that we should do that. I'm not happy with asking one person and not five other people. I think it sucks.
 
 
rising and revolving
17:21 / 10.08.05
You have to accept that Tom's going to want to put people he knows well into a new forum.

Do you really want the type of transparency you're suggesting around moderation? I want you all to really, really think about this because there will be criticisms thrown around about people and they'll be serious- some of them will be about your use of words and grammar, the content of your posts and the detail they include or exclude, your initial interaction with the board. These are things that moderators think about now and people need to consider whether they've been quietly actively rejected or not and whether they want a real insight into that rejection and how they will start to interact here in the face of that.

Speaking for myself, absolutely. I don't feel bad about not being selected, nor will I if I'm told that it's because I had a fight w/ Spatula in the pre-G&G videogames forum. In fact, the only reason I'd be unhappy would be if it was because people thought I was actually Sypha Nadon, and were judging me on that basis Similar name, but heck...

I do think this ties into the moderator responsibilities thread in an interesting way - the suggestion above (I think) is that people would be inappropriate to be a mod because they don't meet certain critera BUT that these criteria shouldn't apply to people once they are mods, correct?

Which is to say, mods are just janitors and should behave just like members but in order to become one you have to meet a standard of behaviour prior? And that standard of behaviour is not reflected by the current moderators, because they're just like normal members?

If that *is* the case, it's definately something that could use closer examination, I feel.

The ‘them and us’ thing that sylph mentions.

Has been going on for 10 years on every bulletin board and chatroom that I've ever contributed to or moderated.

That's a shame. It's not universal, though. Just to clarify too as I seem to have been made the advocate of the us v. them position - I don't think it exists as an objective reality (as I said when I brought the point up) but I think the perception is clearly present and it's the perception that I was raising. I think that perception can be reduced through more transparency, yes.

I would not be happy with selecting moderators, I have never rejected anyone as a potential moderator for a forum that I work within that capacity for.

But you are happy with Tom doing so. Which seems (to me) a bit of a weird and anti-barbelith POV, given the intent to distribute responsibility - why push so hard to keep the actual influence concentrated in one set of hands?
 
 
Bed Head
17:31 / 10.08.05
Personally you haven't addressed the selection issue.

Who, me? I didn’t address your ‘selection issue’ because I didn’t quite understand it. I’m still not sure, after this:

I would never submit someone's name unless it was their idea and I'm not happy with the idea that we should do that.

I haven’t suggested anything of the kind. Where’s this come from? People should submit themselves, who's saying otherwise? By ‘invitation,’ I mean there could be a general invitation for new moderators, in a thread like this, or the G&G one that was just linked to. And I’m just saying that those applications can then be weighed in some way before Tom deals with them.

I’m not proposing you or anyone else but Tom should do the selecting, nina. You say I have a dislike of selection processes, but you’re already selected. Tom selects. That’s a selection process. And I’m not disagreeing with that, I’m just saying if we were a teensy bit more organised and did a bit of proper *evaluation* first, a bit of consultation, his selection might not mostly have to be based on which people he knows and trusts. I’m not seeing how checking what people think is a bad thing.

You teetered on the brink of putting the Haus/Toksik exchange about Toksik’s suitability up for deletion as threadrot, nina - there isn’t already a proper place to discuss these things. I suggested a scheme involving PMs rather than a proper thread because I’d personally be a bit uncomfortable with having such a discussion in public, considering the ‘public’ weren’t voting or anything. As I’ve said before, the level of ‘transparency’ that everyone is comfortable with would need to be decided. It’s not an either/or.

But I don’t see why it should be *necessary* keep on just Directing All Correspondence about suitability to Tom, if we could find some way of weighing that kind of thing ourselves. Tom will still be the one that does the selecting, it's his site, I just think we might be able to give him a little more to go on.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:01 / 10.08.05
Actually, I was thinking about this, and was wondering whether there could be a process whereby people give up all their mod powers and then ask which forums would like to have them - I think, however, that that would only work with relatively well-established members...
 
 
Char Aina
22:26 / 10.08.05
i think a selection process similar to the one described by bed head would be equable and appealing.
i am a fairly decent example of a poster with whom issue has been taken regarding suitability for the moderator position.
as such, i have no problem with a public discussion of my percieved failings if i am given room to defend against them if appropriate.
if the conversation on suitability was between the existing moderators of said forum and myself and remained civil, i cant see a problem at all.
it could be that, in my readiness to take comment on board, i am an exceptional example of patience and humility
...but i doubt that.


I'm sorry but I kind of like the way it works at the moment, with people saying they want to moderate and then becoming a moderator unless someone says no for a specific reason.

it seems to be the same system, only more rigidly organised and with guidelines.
in my example haus and i shared several PMs over the issues he was raising and others.
i at no point felt that it was an imposition to discuss with him on examining what he felt were areas of my style/content that needed addressing, and our exchange might well have benefitted from observation and participation from other mods.
more heads make for a better fit middle ground, in my opinion.

i would strongly suggest that democratising the process of moderator selection in a way similar to that outlined would be a good thing.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:39 / 10.08.05
Mind you, I was perhaps excessively bad-cop with Toksik - I think that intensity of critique may be unhelpful in the general context. Which is another question - does distributed moderation mean we don't have to worry about a new moderator potentially having been publicly criticised by other moderators in their forum?
 
 
Tom Coates
16:28 / 11.08.05
You know what's weird? When your workload goes up and then your flat floods and you lose the plot for a couple of weeks and everyone around you assumes that it's a conspiracy to stop them becoming moderators (this is meant to be light-hearted, so please don't get teanse - my jokes are falling really flat at the moment).

I stated the process for the current run and I stick by it - basically stage one was get rid of mods who aren't doing the job. Stage two was trying to reward moderators who have done great work by helping them choose new fora they'd like to help out on, and to stop people moderating all the fora. Stage three was new moderators for the board, with newbies basically getting the opportunity to mod one or two fora with a potential veto or qualification from me or from any other mods if we thought the person concerned was taking on a particularly controversial fora or (rarely) if we thought they were psychos.

Once those mods have been doing it a while and we do another pass, if they'd demonstrated that they weren' going to cause really big fights (skipping over Haus for a moment, before you all start) then in that next round they too woudl get to mod multiple fora as they chose.

The only reason that the suggestions made in this thread and this thread haven't been acted upon is because I'm bloody knackered and I forgot all about it. Sorry guys - mea culpa, it's bad of me and I take full responsibility, but it's not a conspiracy! Can I suggest that anyone who does want to mod in THIS round goes and puts their name down (feel free to put out a call in the Conversation or in any of the other fora where they might be needed), and can I also suggest that someone PMs me over hte weekend to remind me to do the work involved.

All of this being completely incidental - of course - to the process of working out the system for the next time we want to reorganise this stuff...
 
 
Char Aina
17:09 / 11.08.05
When your workload goes up and then your flat floods and you lose the plot for a couple of weeks and everyone around you assumes that it's a conspiracy to stop them becoming moderators

god, but thats ironic!
i only flooded your flat because i thought there was a conspiracy!
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
19:52 / 28.03.06
*looks up at previous thread, not sure how to respond, sighs*

Well, I wasn't sure exactly where to say this, but this thread I found seems to be right up the alley I'm looking for. I've been thinking the last couple of weeks, and I'm wondering if I could apply to become a forum moderator. I don't have a particular forum I want to moderate, I could go where ever I was needed. How would I go about this process? I'm assuming eventually I'll need to go to Tom and such, but what do I have to do before that?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:09 / 28.03.06
Well, your first thing is probably to work out which forum you want to moderate. Apart from the Gathering sometimes, we're not really _under_moderated, so the reason to have someone as a moderator is really because you think they'd have an interest in the forum being better. This was the thinking behind removing the admins, in part - that they had mod powers over fora they didn't read. So, have a think about what fora you are most involved in and which you would like to work on improving...
 
 
Bed Head
20:58 / 28.03.06
Yeah, I think it’s still entirely a Tom thing, and I’m not sure how much appetite there is for any of the stuff in this thread, Spyder - although I agree with what Smoothly says here that many more moderators would maybe be a good thing, and personally I still kinda think that some way of organising ourselves so that the ‘approval’ process for this is more distributed among current members might be a good idea. In the long run. Maybe.

But aaaanyway. There’s this thread for regular ‘can I be a mod?’ requests, Spyder, sometimes they’re picked up and sometimes they aren’t. Depends on Tom. Or you could just email him direct. But anyway, that’s how you need to set out your request: user number - forum number. If that’s any help.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
14:12 / 29.03.06
Thanks guys. I'll think about it for a couple days and then probably post to that thread.
 
 
Tom Coates
19:46 / 29.03.06
Okay - I've entirely not read this entire thread, and I'm not going to get the chance to until at least tomorrow and probably not until the weekend (STUPID LIFE FULL OF ****s) but I just thought I should respond to 'mysterious fiat' earlier in the thread with the statement: It's never a conspiracy, it's always a fuckup. Basically I'm over-run with jobs to do all over the place STILL and I miss things all over the place. Although adding moderators isn't the hardest job in the world, it's more complicated than sending out the invitation e-mails to new users and I forget to do that pretty regularly as well.

The basic premise of people volunteering to be moderators and then - assuming there isn't wide dissent or vetos from a couple of mods, them getting the jobs - is still the case. The difficulty is that I've lost my place on some of the older threads and can't work out who to add or not and don't have the headspace to think about it. Too much 'hating my new job', travelling to conferences, trying to keep on top of the e-mail (only 9,000 unread now!) and stuff to do everything I need to do.

Again - if people can find a clear and simple process for working out who should moderate and can get me a clear list (user id, forum id) then I'll make an effort to keep no more than a couple of months behind it. And apologies to everyone who's waited a long time for adding Ganesh again so quickly - I just happened to have ten minutes on the day he asked for that and it's not really like he needs much vetting after being here since the beginning.
 
 
Shrug
16:10 / 20.06.06
Okay.
*Bump*
Because of Tom's post in the Thread to list forums that you would want to moderate.
Solutions? Thoughts? etc.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:53 / 20.06.06
Personally, I'd say delegating it to a/some long-term poster/s (who's likely to know everyone) would be the best solution. I'm not putting myself forward as I'm none too good at discriminating, and would probably give anyone the benefit of the doubt, which could get messy.

I'd actually recommend Haus, though I realise other people may not agree. I'd trust him not to let personal conflicts interfere with his judgment on this one (and that's actually nothing to do with my inability to discriminate/liking of the guy- I actually think he'd be the best option, having been here forever and probably communicated with pretty much every active poster we have).

Anyone have any other nominees in mind?

Otherwise, I don't know, really.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:22 / 20.06.06
How about we install two moderators in music, lock the "I want to be a moderator" thread and only take moderators again in six months time... and only then if we need any.

I hesitate to recommend that one or two people should select moderators. No one is impartial.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:28 / 20.06.06
I hesitate to recommend that one or two people should select moderators. No one is impartial.

Yeah, fair enough. Maybe a bunch of people who can thrash it out among themselves. Kind of like "distributed selection of distributed moderators" or something.

Thing is, the choosing two now thing and more later makes total sense. But who chooses them?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:35 / 20.06.06
It's not urgent, the forum can get by with the number of moderators it has and when he has a moment he can look into it. If we lock the thread then he has ample time to see it as it stands now and the technical ability to bookmark it and return to the job when he has a moment and the inclination. We can also unlock the thread and bump it as required.
 
 
Shrug
21:39 / 20.06.06
Here's what I suggested earlier.

(cross posted from the other thread)

Just some thoughts:
1)A moderator should be able to sustain a reasonable on-line presence.
2)Each forum should have enough moderators to keep up with moderatorial requests within, at least, a 12 hour period.
3)A moderator should be a trusted member of Barbelith having spent a reasonable amount of time spent here.
3)AF&D, Creation and Music clearly need more moderators.

Perhaps, there should be a certain decided upon point every year or every six months where moderators can either step down or step up to the plate?
If there's a clear need for more/new moderators the moderators of the forums concerned can collate and organise any potential moderators and eliminate those who don't obviously fit the bill and then email Tom as in the application for membership process.

I'd be happier with a group of people rather than just the one too.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:40 / 20.06.06
I'd agree with that, actually. Though if the thread's to be locked then he should be told this is being done, otherwise its sinkiness is gonna look like unimportance.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:45 / 20.06.06
A,F&D doesn't need more moderators, it needs more people to post there.
 
 
Bed Head
21:45 / 20.06.06
Well, I think shrug’s point in the other thread, about having *regular*, if not frequent, decisions on this is a good one. It needn’t be so difficult or such a Big Thing to step in and out of these jobs, and it should relate to your engagement with barbelith at the time. And for what it’s worth, I think we could still use the wiki for this somehow - at any rate, I’d be perfectly happy to collect together all the names and user numbers and their intended fora, and arrange them all in a neat pile somewhere for other people to then go thru. If that would ultimately help in any practical, fuss-saving sort of way.

But yes. I’d agree that there should be some sort of ‘blackball’, but I think that that should be anonymous in the same way as any other distributed moderating decision, rather than personal, if only to avoid any you-blocked-my-dream-of-moderating-Policy–you-bastard outbursts. Doesn’t really concern me, personally, if it’s only three people making those decisions, or twenty.


(I don’t know what the ‘only Music currently needs moderators’ thing is about. I’d say Creation needs more, has needed more for a while, and I don’t understand how you’re defining ‘enough’ anyway if people are *here* and wanting to get involved.)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:45 / 20.06.06
My above post was actually aimed at Anna de L's post, but it works for Shrug's too.
 
 
Shrug
21:52 / 20.06.06
A,F&D doesn't need more moderators, it needs more people to post there.

That was it! What was I thinking? ^_^
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:52 / 20.06.06
Why does creation need more moderators?
 
 
Shrug
21:54 / 20.06.06
I would've thought Creation needed more moderators because moderatorial action takes quite a while to be put through. Apart from that leading to big problems, as with Hawksmoor, it's just annoying sometimes.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:56 / 20.06.06
Well as an A,F&D moderator I can tell you that we get moderation requests rarely, that they're passed quickly and that moderators can't control the lack of response to a thread. I can start a host of threads but cannot make people to respond to them.
 
 
Bed Head
21:59 / 20.06.06
Why does creation need more moderators?

Well, I've though it needs more since the last time it was Knodged and it took two entire days for a simple thread deletion to be passed. It’s no less vulnerable to that now than it was then.

Moreover, why not? There’s a lot of moderators - in AF&D for example - who don’t actually post here at the moment. You’ve got a lot of star posters across the board who are here now and who *are* barbelith at the moment - Evil Scientist, Entity, Sekhmet, Tango-Mango, others - who are volunteering to get involved and who are being told ‘we don’t need you’. Well, I don’t think you should be so dismissive, frankly. Why not accommodate instead? Why the upper limit? Why the resistance to the very idea of people easily moving in and out of moderation jobs?
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply